Allowed

Shrikant Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2022BAIL/34348/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail during trial in a case involving dowry death and cruelty. Court relied on the fact that key family witnesses were declared hostile and found no convincing evidence of tampering, imposing strict conditions regarding trial attendance and preventing witness tampering. Relief granted via personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding attendance, witness tampering, and trial conduct.

Shrikant Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34348 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shrikant Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant Shrikant Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in S.C. No. 361 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2020, under Sections 304B, 498A, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Dudhara, District- Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.7.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 21012 of 2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased/Smt. Antima Devi but implication is based on falsity. It is further argued that the deceased as per post mortem report, has not received any bodily injury and the doctor has specifically noted that there is no external mark of injury but could not ascertain the cause of death and as such viscera was preserved. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died. It is further argued that trial has started in which Smt. Sushila Devi mother of the deceased, was produced and examined as P.W.-1, Mukesh Kumar father of the deceased, was produced and examined as P.W.-2 and Vikas brother of the deceased, was produced and examined as P.W.3 and all the three witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Copies of the statements of the said three witnesses are annexed as annexure no. 9 to the affidavit in support of bail application. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 5.9.2020.

¶9

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but

¶10

could not dispute the arguments as raised.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that in the trial three witnesses Smt. Sushila Devi, Mukesh Kumar and Vikas who are family members of the deceased have been declared hostile.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Shrikant Gupta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 22.9.2022

¶24

Naresh

¶25

Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR Date: 2022.09.23 14:07:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shrikant Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Narendra Kumar

Rudramani Mishra Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Harish Chandra Saxena

Mahipal Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs H.C. Shiv Bihari Dubey and Another